cancelar_pagamento_conta_pagar

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation reverses the baixa (write-off), which is a key behavioral trait, and clarifies the identifier source. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or conditions under which cancellation is allowed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a crucial usage note. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple reversal tool with no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose, the effect (reversing the baixa), and the input source. It could be slightly more complete by indicating the type of response or any preconditions beyond obtaining the baixa code.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the parameters refer to the baixa, not the title, and that the baixa is obtained from lancar_pagamento. However, it does not explain the difference between codigo_baixa and codigo_baixa_integracao, leaving the agent to infer which to use.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool cancels/stornoes the payment of an accounts payable and reverses the write-off. It distinguishes itself from related tools like lancar_pagamento and cancelar_recebimento by specifying the resource (conta a pagar) and the unique identification method (baixa, not title).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent the tool identifies the baixa (write-off) returned by lancar_pagamento, not the title, which is essential for correct use. This implies a workflow (first post payment, then cancel using the baixa code), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.